www.softlandings.org.uk the SOFT LANDINGS FRAMEWORK for better briefing, design, handover and building performance in-use BSRIA BG 4/2009 soft landings framework d BB final 18-06.qxd 18/06/2009 16:10 Page 3 soft landings framework d BB final 18-06.qxd 18/06/2009 16:10 Page 4 Acknowledgements This Soft Landings Framework was authored by Mark Way of the Darwin Consultancy and Bill Bordass of the Usable Buildings Trust, with assistance from Adrian Leaman of Arup and Building Use Studies, and Roderic Bunn of BSRIA. Development of the Soft Landings Framework was led by an industry Task Group convened by BSRIA and comprising the following organisations: AECOM Fielden Clegg Bradley Studios Ann Bodkin Sustainability + Architecture Fulcrum Consulting Arup Hammerson Bennetts Associates Land Securities BSRIA Max Fordham LLP CIBSE University of Cambridge Darwin Consultancy Usable Buildings Trust Davis Langdon Consulting Willmott Dixon Group Edward Cullinan Architects This Framework is based on the Soft Landings methodology devised by Mark Way and developed in 2003/04 with a Soft Landings Steering and Support Group comprised of the following organisations: Arup Fielden Clegg Bradley Architects BSRIA Gardiner & Theobald Buro Happold Hoare Lea Partnership Carillion Mace CIBSE Max Fordham & Partners University of Cambridge Estate RMJM Management and Building Services Scott Wilson Kirkpatrick & Co Mott MacDonald Group Shepherd Construction Davis Langdon & Everest Whitby Bird and Partners Edward Cullinan Architects William Bordass Associates Faber Maunsell | AECOM W S Atkins Zisman Bowyer and Partners the SOFT LANDINGS FRAMEWORK for better briefing, design, handover and building performance in-use All rights reserved. Although this work in its entirety is subject to the publisher’s copyright, permission is granted to users to reproduce and modify extracts for practical application. Unless otherwise agreed with the publisher all published extracts must carry the following acknowledgment: “Reproduced from the Soft Landings Framework, published by BSRIA and authored by the Usable Buildings Trust.” BSRIA BG 4/2009 June 2009 ISBN 978 086 022 6857 Printed by Imagedata Group the SOFT LANDINGS FRAMEWORK 3 soft landings framework d BB final 18-06.qxd 18/06/2009 16:10 Page 6 Located on a rural site on the edge of Bath, the headquarters for Wessex Water was designed to meet the company’s long-term business plan. This placed sustainability at the centre of the company’s operations. As a consequence, the project not only considered environmental issues, but also a wide range of social and economic factors, such as staff interaction within the office, the relationship with neighbours, and the ability of the building to adapt to future change. Throughout the project the client ensured that the end users were consulted to inform the brief and to respond to design development. Key members of the client’s team included representatives of the facilities management and IT departments, all of whom engaged in debate and discussion on how to extract the best from the new building. This covered not only the initial period of occupation, but also the flexibility required to accommodate future needs. Drilling down into all such operational issues ensured that there was a thorough understanding of how the building was intended to work. Incoming staff were advised of the operating principles and details of their new workspace. The three year post-occupancy evaluation was conducted jointly by the client, design, construction and maintenance team. 4 the SOFT LANDINGS FRAMEWORK soft landings framework d BB final 18-06.qxd 18/06/2009 16:10 Page 7 Introduction Why bother with Soft Landings? Perhaps it was this year’s bi-centenary of Charles Darwin’s birth, rather than the recession, that prompted thoughts about evolution and survival of the fittest, but it struck me that his observations could equally apply to buildings. As an industry, we have often seemed incapable of learning about the performance of our own creations, with the inevitable result that buildings regularly fail to meet their owners’ operational expectations or, worse, are demolished less than a generation after their completion. For those outside the industry the idea of continual improvement - ploughing back the lessons from one completed project to the next - must be obvious but, with few exceptions, this is rarely done by an industry too obsessed by capital cost. Shortcomings in basic requirements such as comfort, energy consumption and adaptability are not only irritating and costly in their own right, but also undermine attempts to achieve high levels of sustainability. There are reasons for optimism. The need for lower-carbon buildings is rapidly establishing a culture for measurement of energy that is a stone’s throw from greater knowledge about performance in general. Systematic, post-occupancy evaluation is widely recognised to be a hugely important step in the right direction, but it needs to be linked to a rational methodology for assessing the briefing, design and commissioning stages. This is where Soft Landings comes into its own, closing the loop between design, construction, operation, feedback and into design again. As the title suggests, the raison-d'être of Soft Landings is to provide better buildings and a more effective service to the client. Particular thanks are due to Michael Dickson for encouraging its development and to Buro Happold for its financial support. It became clear to me during the last major recession in the early 1990s that occupiers who had a choice due to the abundance of surplus property would always go for the building that was well considered and highly functional. The current recession is following a similar pattern, so surely the subtext for the industry should be to embrace the knowledge gained from performance assessment and turn it into competitive advantage. Only the best buildings will survive in the long term. Rab Bennetts, Bennetts Associates, June 2009 the SOFT LANDINGS FRAMEWORK 5 soft landings framework d BB final 18-06.qxd 18/06/2009 16:10 Page 8 Soft Landings was being developed with the support of the Director of Estates at the University of Cambridge while the Centre for Mathematical Sciences was being constructed. The phased development of the Centre and a ‘no blame’ attitude adopted by the client permitted a continual assessment of the emerging design in actual physical performance and user expectation. Following completion of the first phase, a post-occupancy evaluation was carried out to measure the building performance of the recently occupied buildings. As part of this study an occupant survey and a full building pressure test was also conducted. Many of the results were incorporated into design changes for the subsequent building phases. The final appraisal revealed that the occupants and the University viewed the project as a great success. 6 the SOFT LANDINGS FRAMEWORK soft landings framework d BB final 18-06.qxd 18/06/2009 16:10 Page 9 Contents 08 The birth of Soft Landings 10 Background to Soft Landings 13 Introduction to the procedure 16 Stage 1: Inception and briefing 18 Stage 2: Design development and review 20 Stage 3: Pre-handover 22 Stage 4: Initial aftercare 24 Stage 5: Years 1 - 3 Extended aftercare and POE Appendices 26 Appendix A: Example worksheets the SOFT LANDINGS FRAMEWORK 7 soft landings framework d BB final 18-06.qxd 18/06/2009 16:10 Page 10 The birth of Soft Landings As an architect I used to design buildings, get them built, hand them over, and then move on to the next job. This was rarely the end of the matter: I had to respond to things that came up during the defects liability period, and help with the final account - routine procedures that had to be followed. Along with most of my fellow professionals, my post-handover connection with the building in use was largely reactive. However, I felt that the accumulation of experience could be put to better use if one could head off issues before they happened. This meant knowing more about the building in use. In the late 1990s, as a project director, I found myself regularly calling in to check progress with the client at the tail end of a particularly leading-edge building RMJM had designed for a major pharmaceutical company. My team had put a lot of brainpower into the project and it would be a pity if this was undermined by the usual post-handover minor glitches that could easily be allowed to mutate into chronic problems. This happened to coincide with a prolonged user occupation programme and offered a golden opportunity to be around while staff were beginning to work there. I borrowed a typical office as a base and used its facilities just like any member of staff, while observing the building in use and the occupants at work. This short period in residence was a transforming experience, providing major insights that I had suspected, but not experienced in thirty years of professional practice. I saw people not understanding how things were supposed to work, such as the BMS-linked solar blinds, and was able to explain the design intent to them. I could often spot things not working properly before the users did, such as over-zealous presence-detected lighting, head-off potential problems, and organise follow-up. I learnt about things that were good but which users didn’t understand. I found well-intended design features that fell at the first fence when used by non-architects, in other words the average building user. In a subsequent project at Cambridge University, David Adamson, the Director of Estates, asked me to give one of a series of lectures. It was around the time of the last financial crisis and there was much talk of hard or soft landing of the global economy (where clearly lessons are not learnt).